15 December 2010 3:41 PM

Matthew 'Twister' Parris, Dope and the Guardian, Prisons and Punishment, Bed and Breakfast accommodation, Parasites - All Human Life is Here

Amazingly, there are still readers of this weblog who believe government statistics. There are two rules about such statistics, which ought to be grasped by all informed persons. One is that all politically important statistics are massaged. The other is that in socialist societies governed by utopian idealists (such as ours) most statistics are subject to what is known as the 'Bikini effect', namely that what they conceal is more interesting than what they reveal.

One such believer is Grant Price, who (as well as using the ghastly dead cliche about the 'Elephant in the Room', a cliche which ought to be shot) writes: 'The statistics clearly show the country heading in the opposite direction [to the one suggested by me]. Crime is falling, and falling significantly, and when one considers that a staggering proportion of crime is perpetrated by foreigners (thanks to Labour's incontinent immigration policy), the level of criminality amongst the British is falling even more rapidly, despite decades of “liberal” misrule.'

I'm sorry. But where do I begin? 'Recorded' crime is that which has been recorded by the police, which is to say that which the police have entered on the forms which they have to fill in. By definition, that which is recorded excludes that which is not recorded. Much modern crime is not recorded. How might a crime not be recorded? Well, one common case would be when the victim doesn't think it worth reporting. So (for example) the multiple victim of burglary on the sink estate, who probably never had insurance and certainly doesn't now, so has no need of the 'crime number' which is the sole police response to most crime these days, has no reason to report the latest, and many reasons not to. Becoming known as a 'grass' in these parts of our country is a ticket to utter misery.

Then again, the police (who long ago maximised crime figures in order to press for higher funding) now have many ways of massaging them downwards to satisfy ministers (of all parties) who currently want to claim that crime is falling.The first and easiest way of doing this is to be largely absent from the streets, to close police stations or move them to remote locations, to take a very long time to answer the phone and to be of no great help if and when they eventually do arrive at a crime scene. If people (known contemptuously by the police as 'civilians') continue to persist with the charade of calling the constabulary for crimes which the force, I mean service, regards as 'trivial', then thefts are reclassified as lost property, multiple burglaries in one building somehow appear as one crime, etc etc. Not to mention murders somehow ending up in court as manslaughter.

I agree that some figures can't be fiddled, and some aren't. Totals such as those of arrests (though these are often unobtainable) or of convictions are incontrovertible. But these do not represent accurate figures on the numbers of crimes actually committed. Even the remaining diligent and anti-crime police officers (as shown in my 'Abolition of Liberty') are justifiably reluctant to embark on the form-filling nightmare which follows an arrest. They have an incentive to avoid it.

Homicide, I suspect, has sometimes fallen absolutely as hospital trauma surgery skills have increased (and they have, enormously) and as ambulance services have grown faster and more effective, and their crews better-trained in keeping the badly-injured alive. It has certainly fallen in relation to the amount of homicidal violence taking place. Put simply, it is now much easier to make a savage attack on someone without killing him or her. I have said many times that if we still had the medical techniques of 1965, we would have an annual homicide rate far higher than it is. Many who would have died 40 years ago now survive, and their cases are classified as wounding or attempted murder. (See my book 'A Brief History of Crime'.) Bank Robbery is increasingly the resort of the unbelievably stupid, as precautions against it are now so elaborate that the chances of a successful theft are virtually nil.

Then there are those things which are perceived as crimes or as illegal disorder by many of us - mainly to do with loutish gatherings of youths in streets, the kicking of footballs against homes, other similar miseries perpetrated by the young and strong against the old and vulnerable, the feral harassment of the old or handicapped or different (see the case of Francesca Pilkington), uncontrolled public drunkenness, which in the not so distant past would have been dealt with by the police and which they now simply ignore. These are pandemic in urban areas, but almost totally unrecorded. As for the possession of drugs, I think we may be sure that the enormous number of cannabis warnings given are a fraction of the number of offences to which the police turn a blind eye, or about which they do not know because they are not specially interested in finding out.

Above all there is the increasing switch from classic crime statistics to the British Crime Survey as the main source of supposed information about this subject. The British Crime Survey is not an assembly of gathered figures, but an opinion poll with all the faults of such things, and a rather flawed one at that, specially bad at noticing crimes committed against the young, who are the principal victims of many offences. Those who wish to believe that crime (and disorder) in this country are genuinely diminishing are welcome to their belief, even though it must be hard to maintain for any but the most sequestered. But they are deluding themselves. You might equally well believe that the amount of dangerous and careless driving has diminished, when the opposite is obviously the case, or that hardly anyone ever uses a mobile phone while driving, or hardly any cyclists run red lights. Of course they do, but it goes unrestrained by authorities who have ceded the Tarmac to the motorist, and so it also goes unrecorded.

Twister Alert

How can I get it across to some readers that my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris is not motivated by personal distress, or because I am 'upset' - but by a desire to uphold truth and pursue justice, both of which have been wounded by this episode? It is the truth which has been insulted, not I.

On the matter of truth, Mr Parris twisted my words in a public place, ignored my immediate protests and my subsequent ones, and refused multiple chances to put this right in a civilised fashion. He lives by his tongue and pen, which are surely devalued by the twisting of the words of others. He also has a reputation for being a 'decent guy', 'reasonable' etc, which in my view conflicts with this behaviour.

On the pursuit of justice: Some of you may have begun to guess that the more often I mention Mr Parris's behaviour, the more references to it will find their way on to the World Wide Web, and the harder it will be for him to encounter people who are unaware of his twisting of my words. He may put this right at any time by admitting that he twisted what I said and (preferably) apologising so that I can forgive him, as I wish to do - but currently cannot.

Mr 'Richie Craze’ (really? I suppose it's possible) states: 'Perhaps you can explain what part of what Mr Parris said you said you disagree with?'

Well, Mr 'Craze' should know that I have done so here and here (scroll down to 'What I said....')

Though whether Mr 'Craze' actually reads anything here, or just imagines it all to suit his own prejudices, I don't know, given what he goes on to say, which is: 'Given that you've consistently written scornfully of homosexuals, or gays, to use the modern parlance;'

Have I so?

Perhaps Mr 'Craze' could produce examples of these 'scornful' writings.

Mr 'Craze' then adds: 'and stand in opposition to giving them equal rights (I believe you stated not too long ago that decriminalising homosexuality was as far as you would have liked the law to go)'

This on the other hand is more or less correct, though there are important qualifications about the loaded phrase 'equal rights'.

Mr Craze then lurches over a set of non-existent points on to the track he wishes to be on (a common fault in my critics, who even so seldom realise that they have become derailed) by adding: 'then surely Mr Parris's comment was merely an extrapolation of a view you do in fact hold?'

Well no, it surely wasn't - as I have been at pains to explain. I might add that it also certainly wasn't what I said or intended in the discussion at issue. Mr Parris, to his credit, has not sought to seek refuge in this dispute by the wretched excuse that this is what he thinks I meant in general (as opposed to what I actually do think) about the subject, therefore it is all right to pretend that it is what I actually said on this specific occasion, when in fact I didn't. So I advise his defenders not to do so either. It makes them look very cheap. If you say somebody said something, then it is wise to be able to show that he said it, rather than that you thought he thought it.

Bed and Breakfast

Some contributors have mentioned a curious case at Bristol County Court - once again a Bed and Breakfast run by a Christian couple seems to be the object of a mighty legal action. Wasn't the last one about Muslims being upset? This one is about homosexual rights.

There are many interesting things about this case, but what fascinates me about it (and I have yet to see any reports which answer my question) is why the homosexual couple involved chose the Chymorvah House private hotel given that there must be so many such establishments in the area? Was it personal recommendation? Did they search the web? Or what? Even if they had no idea of the hotel's policy stated upon its website ('Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.'), how did they happen upon it?

I'd also be interested to know how often they go on bed-and-breakfast seaside holidays together or singly, and when was the last time and where it was?

Just curious, I guess.

Prisons and Punishment, and 'New Parties'

Mr Everett ludicrously misrepresents an answer I gave to a question seeking examples of actions a conservative government might take which I regard as desirable and which would be against the interests of capitalism. He turns this into a programme for a 'new party'. I mentioned neither programme nor party, nor set these forward as such. Why do people do such things? There can be no new party until there is a vacancy, and the electorate showed at the last election that they did not wish to create such a vacancy, being content to be controlled by the existing social democratic political class. I have laid aside talk of political reform until it once again seems practicable. But I'm happy to discuss those things which I favour.

I do not care, by the way, that my wish to place heavy restrictions on private motor cars might make me unpopular. No worthwhile cause exists without this risk. I think the growth of private motor traffic is so damaging to civilisation, peace and beauty that I believe it is time someone addressed it directly. I am sure many others (including many involuntarily enslaved by our car-worshipping society) share this view but fear to express it.

The fact that many goods are distributed by road does not mean that they *should* do so or that no better way can be found than this filthy, destructive, dangerous, noisy method, which makes us dependent for our transport and economy upon some of the nastiest and most unstable regimes on earth.

Likewise, the fact that most car use is irrational and wasteful, and much of it dictated by town planning which creates the need for cars where none existed before, does not mean that all use of private motor vehicles is irrational. There's an excellent case for taxis, and for private cars in remote and hilly rural areas which cannot be practically reached by rail.

Oh, yes, and prisons. I'd like to repeat here a response I left on the previous thread to Mr James Staunton: 'James Staunton, in a post dripping with knowing and superior scorn, accuses me of making a “sweeping assertion” that most criminals don't reach prison until they have a long string of previous offences behind them (he then gives an oddly partial quote from what I said).

‘Try this, from the Government's own “Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales, 2009” (p.76) “Those offenders with a substantial previous criminal history are most likely to receive a custodial sentence. In 2009, 38 per cent of sentenced offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions received a custodial sentence compared with 15 per cent for those with only one or two previous sanctions. Although there are a substantial number of sentenced first time offenders receiving custodial sentences, 26 per cent in 2009 compared with 18 per cent in 2000, these are offenders whose first conviction is for a relatively serious offence in contrast to the majority of offenders who have a longer criminal history of minor offences.

‘ “In 2009, seven per cent of juveniles receiving a custodial sentence had no previous criminal history compared with 10 per cent for adult offenders. For both age groups the proportion of custodial sentences given to offenders with 15 or more previous sanctions has risen steadily since 2000.”‘The accompanying Table 6.2 backs this up. I would go into more detail, but alas the Ministry of Injustice confesses that it does not possess or tabulate statistics on this subject which address the matter more closely. I have no doubt that, were they available all figures would back up my contention. Does Mr Staunton know any better?‘He also objects that I don't provide the Soma report, as mentioned. I had thought I'd given enough co-ordinates for anyone to find it. He might try here:‘http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_53373_EN_emcdda-cannabis-mon-vol1-ch4-web.pdf’

Guardians of what?

Some of you may have seen my brief article in 'The Guardian' today. (Wednesday 15th December)

This arose out of a brief letter I wrote to the Guardian in my defence, after Decca Aitkenhead's original article was published. The paper's comment section generously and properly offered me a little extra space in which to make my point. The response to this which came from the readers of that newspaper is very telling. Hardly a single comment actually addressed the point I make. Almost all were marinated in personal fury, resentment and loathing. It is shocking to realise that most of these people probably imagine themselves to be well-educated.

After reading these comments, I reflected that:

I didn't say I have no prejudices - of course I do, and so does any man. But I did say that I don't let them get in the way of facts, as Ms Aitkenhead and Professor David Nutt had suggested in the pages of the Guardian. To support this defence I cited evidence of scientific concern about the effects of cannabis on mental illness, a matter on which I had wrongly been accused of 'baseless alarmism'.

And I pointed out that in this case the facts were on my side, as Professor Nutt had made a statement about the treatment of cannabis possession in which he appeared to have let prejudice get in the way of the facts.

That, basically, was it. I am more and more convinced (and there is evidence of this here too) that drug abuse makes its victims angry and intolerant lobbyists for selfishness. I don't mind them disagreeing. But I am alarmed by the intolerant, censorious rage with which they attack my freedom to disagree with them. The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.

Parasites

Some points. No, I don't regard children, incapable of fending for themselves, as parasites. Nor do I regard old or sick people, who through age, accident or illness must now rely on the rest of us to care for them, as such. I reserve the term for those who could shift for themselves but prefer to rely on others, and - while doing so - sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them. I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

A good example of where Mr Hitchens has been scornful about gays, from his column of 2nd February 2009:

"We show tolerance to 'gays' and get tyranny in return

If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy. I really don't want to know what other people do in their bedrooms. But these days they really, really want us all to know. And, more important, they insist that we approve. No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind."

'The most that we can say is that genetics might play a role in a predisposition towards homosexuality but do not predetermine it.'

Either it is genetics, environment or a mixture of both. One thing we can rule out is choice, as many gay people would much rather not be so. (Would people choose to be gay in extreme Muslim countries? And how could anyone choose his or her sexual orientation anyway?) It is an inclination, not a form of behaviour, though it often leads to certain actions.

You continue: 'I'm not sure why you would have included such a statement. If anything it shows that just because someone "can't help" how they are, it doesn't mean that we should excuse their actions.'

Perhaps not, although we certainly do in cases where people are deemed clinically insane. There's a spectrum of culpability, and it's hard to say where certain cases lie.

'You were the one trying to link it to racism so obviously whether or not there is a genetic component did matter to you.'

With the racist analogy, I was merely using a reductio ad absurdum, to question whether Mr. Hitchens would tolerate racist guesthouse policies. I wasn't in any way comparing racism and homophobia in terms of the genetic component. My view is that they are equally unjustified prejudices, not that race and sexuality necessarily have the same cause.

A person's skin color is obviously 100% determined by genetics, so turning someone away on that basis is very different that turning a non-married couple away or a homosexual couple away if it is not genetically determined.'

I fail to see why. If a person were wearing a bowtie, and the guesthouse owner happened to detest bowties, would he be justified in turning the person away, as it was not genetic? Of course not. Both homophobia and bowtiephobia are arbitrary prejudices, unless you can show me a reason why either is not. Besides, I think I've established that it's not a matter of choice, whether caused by environment or genetics. I fail to see the moral difference between genetics and environment in terms of culpability.

Regarding the B&B couple. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, I do not think two grown men should have targeted a middle aged couple in their small business to make their point about how 'persecuted' they are, as offering them separate rooms rather than a double room is not the worst kind of persecution, and it makes the two men look like the bullies.

I would have respected them more if they had made their point by picking on a different religion, one whose disapproval is expressed far more severely than separate rooms in hotels.

There was an interesting TV documentary about a year ago about homosexuals in Palestine fearing for their lives and taking refuge in Israel.

Henry says,
"Personally, I do not think that it is purely genetic, I think that it is most likely to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors. That is my opinion."
and
"...the fact is that homosexuality is not a matter of choice and that it is part of somebody's identity (just like heterosexuality). "

This doesn't make sense to me. The level of genetic contribution would determine the extent to which there is a choice. If the level of genetic contribution were say very high, like 70,80 or 90% then perhaps you could say there is little choice, but some identical twin studies only show a concordance of homosexuality between the twins of 20%, meaning that 80% of the time one of them does not become homosexual.

Joshua Wooderson stated that:
"If it is due to environment, then it is still largely beyond the person's control."

If only 20% (we could give it a range of up to 40% because of varying studies) of the time identical twins that have been raised in the same home both become homosexual then this is obviously not true, because between 60-80% of the time one of them (raised in the same environment) does not become homosexual.

The heritability of aggression is believed to be 38%. Environment must also play a huge factor otherwise we would have to conclude that blacks and Hispanics in the US are just naturally more aggressive because of higher rate of incarceration for violent crimes. I would not conclude that. My conclusion is that we are all given certain cards in life and it is up to us to decide how to play them.
The most that we can say is that genetics might play a role in a predisposition towards homosexuality but do not predetermine it.

Joshua says:
"No doubt murdering psychopaths often cannot help how they are (can any of us?), but we don't give them the right to walk free on this basis. "

I'm not sure why you would have included such a statement. If anything it shows that just because someone "can't help" how they are, it doesn't mean that we should excuse their actions.

Joshua says,
"Whether it is genetic or not is largely irrelevant. If it is due to environment, then it is still largely beyond the person's control. Besides, all this is irrelevant to whether it is somehow bad to give equal status to gay people"

You were the one trying to link it to racism so obviously whether or not there is a genetic component did matter to you. A person's skin color is obviously 100% determined by genetics, so turning someone away on that basis is very different that turning a non-married couple away or a homosexual couple away if it is not genetically determined.

"Michael Williamson: With respect, it's very interesting that you go even further than Mr Hitchens (who simply says he has *less* sympathy), and profess you have *no* sympathy for women raped while drinking heavily. This, if true, would be a scarcely human sentiment. Yes, she may have been foolish, but do you forget she was also violently attacked against her will by a man who must bear the greatest burden of responsibility? That this will scar the rest of her life in innumerable ways? However, I'm aware that it's easy to write such things on an internet forum; if the situation were happening to someone you loved (seriously, God forbid), however foolish they might have been, I doubt you would be able to maintain such cut-and-dried condemnation.".

I neary always go further than Mr Hitchens, whether this is interesting or not I couldn't say. I never have much sympathy for those who either cannot or will not take any responsibility for their own actions. If I were to get drunk and stagger into one of our less salubrious areas only to get mugged and badly beaten, I doubt I would expect sympathy. Besides, I proposed a somewhat different scenario: if a drunken woman enthusiastically enters into a sexual encounter with a man who may, or may not, also be drunk (regardless of what Shakespeare has to say on that subject), is she entitled to claim the next morning that it was rape?

"I admit I don't know the legality of it, but why exactly should hotels, B&Bs ect. be exempt from the basic rules of society relating to equality? I'm genuinely curious. When I worked in a bar in a hotel I saw people saying things and behaving in ways I would myself find immoral, but it wasn't the hotel's job to police people's behaviour or morals, it was the hotel's job to provide the service offered, and the same service to all customers - in the case of the B&B in question, this is the choice of a double room.".

Well it seems things have changed. When I was younger, being loudly profane or objectionable in a pub was likely to get you forcibly ejected. I was once refused admission to a restaurant because I wasn't wearing a tie, I suppose I could have objected that my rights were being abused and I wasn't being treated equally with my female companion who wasn't wearing a tie either, but I simply decided to go elsewhere.

"Anyway, in case I don't get chance to post again, Merry Christmas/Wonderful Winterval to everyone!".

I'll gladly wish you a Merry Christmas but I have no idea what a 'Winterval' is.

Michael Williamson: With respect, it's very interesting that you go even further than Mr Hitchens (who simply says he has *less* sympathy), and profess you have *no* sympathy for women raped while drinking heavily. This, if true, would be a scarcely human sentiment. Yes, she may have been foolish, but do you forget she was also violently attacked against her will by a man who must bear the greatest burden of responsibility? That this will scar the rest of her life in innumerable ways? However, I'm aware that it's easy to write such things on an internet forum; if the situation were happening to someone you loved (seriously, God forbid), however foolish they might have been, I doubt you would be able to maintain such cut-and-dried condemnation.

I admit I don't know the legality of it, but why exactly should hotels, B&Bs ect. be exempt from the basic rules of society relating to equality? I'm genuinely curious. When I worked in a bar in a hotel I saw people saying things and behaving in ways I would myself find immoral, but it wasn't the hotel's job to police people's behaviour or morals, it was the hotel's job to provide the service offered, and the same service to all customers - in the case of the B&B in question, this is the choice of a double room.

Anyway, in case I don't get chance to post again, Merry Christmas/Wonderful Winterval to everyone!

Elaine writes:
"I suppose you are suggesting that one's sexual orientation is purely genetic, but I don't believe it is an open and shut case."

Nobody knows what causes some people to be gay. Personally, I do not think that it is purely genetic, I think that it is most likely to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors. That is my opinion.
Either way, like Joshua Wooderson rightly wrote, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. The fact is that homosexuality is not a matter of choice and that it is part of somebody's identity (just like heterosexuality). I will maintain that you are in no position to approve or disapprove of anybody's sexuality. Therefore your original statement claiming to be able to love someone whilst disapproving of their homosexuality makes no sense to me.

Elaine writes:
'I suppose you are suggesting that one's sexual orientation is purely genetic, but I don't believe it is an open and shut case.'

Whether it is genetic or not is largely irrelevant. If it is due to environment, then it is still largely beyond the person's control. Besides, all this is irrelevant to whether it is somehow bad to give equal status to gay people. No doubt murdering psychopaths often cannot help how they are (can any of us?), but we don't give them the right to walk free on this basis. If the question is whether gay people deserve equal rights to straight people, which would include the right to stay wherever they please, I have yet to see a reason why the answer should be 'no'.

"Bigotry is a much overused word these days it has come to mean, "anyone who doesn't agree with me", - aren't bigots free to think what they like? Surely if you don't agree that would be bigotted and intolerant."

Thank you Mark and I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a very prosperous New Year.

I regret that my response to Richie Craze may have carried with it too much sarcasm. I would like to apologize to him for this but I am tired of the accusations of bigotry that I don't believe are deserved and which (in my opinion) actually do reveal bigotry.

"But homosexuality is much more than a person's actions or outward characteristics, it is a person's identity, part of who they are. "
Posted by: Henry L'Eplattenier | 21 December 2010 at 01:21 PM

That is your opinion.
I suppose you are suggesting that one's sexual orientation is purely genetic, but I don't believe it is an open and shut case. In studies of male homosexuals that had an identical twin only 35-40% of the time did their twin also become homosexual. For female homosexuals it was even lower at only 30%.
30-40% is significant, but even that is suspect if they were raised in the same home. What is also significant is that 60% of the time (more than half) their twin (with the exact same genetic make-up) did not become homosexual.

I don't understand why the same people that are willing to reduce the acquisition of our sexuality to a simple genetic issue would never do the same with our intelligence.

"Michael Williamson: I am not going to continue with this off-topic argument as you are obviously determinded not to address my point, which was not about *responsibility* but about *sympathy*. You have not lectured me about caring for victims of crime, but I thought you were defending Mr Hitchens who unjustifiably did do so.".

I'm afraid I have no sympathy for those who behave in a stupid or irresponsible manner and then, when faced with the consequences of their actions, always seem to think it was somone else's fault which is because they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Nor, I hasten to add, have I ever expected to receive sympathy for all the times that I have behaved irresponsibly and will, no doubt, continue to do so.

"Regarding the couple at the B&B, whether or not it is prefable is hardly the point - as a business, the B&B should have to treat everybody fairly. So even if it wasn't a set up (as Mr Hitchens cowardly insinuates), you think it is right they were denied the services that this business provided, because of how they were born? Where I work I come into contact with people whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, but I am not able to refuse to treat them the same as any other customer. Religion should not be used as an excuse for bigotry.".

Does anyone running a business no longer have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose with no reason give? I was always under the impression that pubs, hotels and B&Bs had that right - am I mistaken? I don't see that there's anything 'cowardly' about Mr Hitchens's insinuations, if it goes to court I expect whoever is defending them will make the same allegations. Besides which, they were prepared to offer them accomodation provided they didn't share a room. Bigotry is a much overused word these days it has come to mean, "anyone who doesn't agree with me", - aren't bigots free to think what they like? Surely if you don't agree that would be bigotted and intolerant.

Elaine writes (in response to Richie Craze):
"What you clearly cannot grasp is that one can disapprove of homosexuality and still love their homosexual friends or family members. I know it takes some maturity to be able to do that but it is possible."

Call me immature, but this makes no sense to me either. I can easily conceive that one can disapprove of somebody's chosen actions like smoking, yet still love the person. I can conceive that one can dislike a particular characteristic of somebody, like campness, yet still love them. But homosexuality is much more than a person's actions or outward characteristics, it is a person's identity, part of who they are. How can you disapprove of a person's identity and love them at the same time? It seems contradictory or even hypocritical to me. And that is why I do not buy Christianity's "we lover the sinner but hate the sin" attitude. How can you disapprove of somebody experiencing the natural and wonderful feelings of love and attraction?

Michael Williamson: I am not going to continue with this off-topic argument as you are obviously determinded not to address my point, which was not about *responsibility* but about *sympathy*. You have not lectured me about caring for victims of crime, but I thought you were defending Mr Hitchens who unjustifiably did do so.

Regarding the couple at the B&B, whether or not it is prefable is hardly the point - as a business, the B&B should have to treat everybody fairly. So even if it wasn't a set up (as Mr Hitchens cowardly insinuates), you think it is right they were denied the services that this business provided, because of how they were born? Where I work I come into contact with people whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, but I am not able to refuse to treat them the same as any other customer. Religion should not be used as an excuse for bigotry.

You're welcome, and yes, I have a bit of free time over the next few weeks so will post the odd comment here and there. Almost feels nice to be missed!
------------------------------------

Excellent posts by Elaine(again) and Brooks Davis..

------------------------------------

Richie Craze, your choice of blogs is a strange one. I do recall the very odd Iain Dale on here accusing someone of 'homophobia' because of a sentence uttered that had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality (can't remember what it was, you will have to trawl the archives on here to find it). His desperation to appear the victim of some sort of hate crime' would have been laughable if it weren't for the fact that troublemakers like that are responsible for spreading the very phobia they claim to loathe.

If accusations of 'homophobia' continue to fly at the drop of a hat then sympathy levels will decrease for those who genuinely are the victims of such abuse.

Sorry, off on a tangent here but, like Iain Dale, you seem a tad keen to highlight bigotry. I hope I'm wrong but that's how it appears..

No madam, it is you who have missed the point. It is against the law to steal motor vehicles but that does not absolve a car owner from taking reasonable precautions with his or her vehicle. It is against the law to rob banks but I don't see many banks leaving there doors open 24 hours a day. If a woman drinks herself into a stupor and is subsequently raped would you not say she was being somewhat unwise? Besides if she was enthusiastic the night before in her drunken state does she have the right in the cold light of day to say it was rape because, in a sober state, she wouldn't have agreed to it? I would say not but I seem to be in a minority these days. I have not lectured you on 'caring about victims of crimes' nor do I intend to.

I am still of the opinion that the B&B couple were entitled to refuse accomodation to whomsoever they chose to without giving any reason, if the law has changed on that, I wasn't aware of it. I don't understand why anyone would want to stay were they weren't welcome.

An American comedian, I think it was Jack Benny, once said he was about to book into a hotel when he noticed a sign that said, 'No dogs, coloureds or Jews allowed'. He decided to go elsewhere, it wasn't the sentiment that bothered him but the billing.

Will people get it throught their thick heads that homosexuals do not have a marriage to be equated with a hetrosexual marriage,it is a Civil Partnership which gives them rights on legal matters such as property etc.. which they never had before. Why has people's faith got mixed up in it, no, it hasn't really it is prejudice and bigotry hiding behind religion. Didn't God make us all in his own image? Were not taught at school as children that the Lord God made us all. Why do some think they have the god given right to make other people's lives a misery,
who gave them that right? Nobody, in law it is discrimination.

Michael Williamson: I don't wish to derail this thread into old arguments, but you are missing my point. The level of responsibility is indeed debateable, though I suspect we would be on different sides of the debate. However, I don't feel less sympathy for a smoker dying of lung cancer just because their behaviour led to it. A woman who is raped after drinking (however heavily) suffers just as much as a woman who was raped stone cold sober.

Your analogy is flawed because a) being raped is not like having your car stolen (that is extremely disrespectful) and b) insurance companies are not human beings and therefore do not feel sympathy for anyone. If your moral judgement is based on the value system of the insurance business I feel sorry for you. And I don't think if that is the case either you or Mr Hitchens have a right to lecture me on caring about victims of crime.

As for the couple at the B & B, all I have seen from Mr Hitchens is more baseless speculation. If he wants to know how often the couple stay at places like this (and I'm not sure exactly what this would prove anyway) why doesn't he ask them? He is a journalist, after all.

While you are posting your comments, tons of drugs are brought into this country from abroad. There goverments have strong laws to protect there young, we dont. The result will be our youth walking about like zombies, while there youth will be drug free. Drug takers and Drunks feel they are being so witty when under the influence. To somebody watching them , they just sound like boring Idiots.

I think you will find that Mr Hitchens elaborates on this in his latest posting (do keep up) and comes to the same conclusion as I did. You may not like that conclusion but I can't help that.

I remember the rape discussion well and I think you will find he was talking about drinking to excess. If your car gets stolen because you left the keys in the ignition, I don't think you will get too much sympathy from your insurance company.

If it does, would the trendy-lefty inclusive "liberal" multiculturalists rent a room in their own homes to a homophobic racist BNP activist, despite the fact that they are receiving a government subsidy?

And if they wouldn't, why should the owner of a B&B be forced to put up people they don't like by them?

For that matter, why are landlords allowed to stop smokers smoking on the premises? Surely less dangerous and offensive than a mixture of body fluids on your sheets, possibly contaminated with who knows what STIs?

Hi Michael Williamson: I'm aware Mr Hitchens was being sarcastic, I was refering to Mark Jones who assumed I thought I was the font of all knowledge. That's why the post was addressed to him. Do keep up.

As for the rest of your post I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have accused Mr Hitchens of other than hyperbole. If you can read the quote from his MoS blog in my first post and not come to the same conclusion I would seriously doubt your critical faculty. The twisting of the facts in the gay couple's case is exactly that he didn't state a conclusion, which could be argued with or disproved, he preferred to insinuate based on no evidence. The twisting of my words was his comment that me calling him up on his hysterical hyperbole meant I somehow didn't know or care about crime. Hope that clears things up for you.

And speaking of caring about crime victims, does anyone else remember the 2008 article (still available on this site) Mr Hitchens wrote in which he opined that if a woman has been drinking and is raped she, 'deserves less sympathy'? Now just to be absolutely clear for the slower commentators here, perhaps there is a debate to be had about drinking (both sexes) and rape. But less sympathy? Is it less traumatic or life altering? Less sympathy? From the man who cares so much about victims of crime (well, some crime).

What I wonder is whether Mr. Hitchens would defend somebody’s right to turn away a black couple on the basis that giving accommodation to other races was against his or her Mormon beliefs (Mormonism was officially a racist church until very recently). If Mr. Hitchens would defend this right (and I can’t see any difference in this case), it seems to me that the right to be put up wherever one wishes to stay is greater than the right of the owners of public guest house to not be offended by their guests’ night-time activities.

As for the statement, 'I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word', whilst we know that many were in fact hooligans looking for trouble, is there any evidence that the majority of protesters weren't students with a genuine conviction that the fee rise was unfair?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.